The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Wherein is ſhewed, that the converting of Biſhops Lands to maintain preaching-Miniſters, would not be ſacriledg, but a good work, in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 15. Chapter.
I Come now to anſwer to your 15. Chapter, wherein you diſpute the Caſe, whether it be lawfull to confer Biſhops Lands on Presbyters; and firſt you ſay, the Church is like our Saviour Chriſt between two theeves, Independents and Presbyterians, but neither of them for our Saviour. But the beſt of it is, your tongue is no ſlander; for if preaching Chriſt, be being for Chriſt; I dare boldly affirm, that the moſt of either of thoſe that diſlike Epiſcopacie, are far more for Chriſt then you and your Prelates, a few only excepted; and of them, the more they be for Chriſt, the leſs violent uſually for Biſhops; eſpecially for your Apoſtle-Biſhops, which they account a fancie. After, you ſay, I like theft, ſo I and my fellow. Presbyterians may be gainers; but your poſition is falſe: I abhor theft as much as you do, nor do I look at the gain of my ſelf, or Presbyterians, but of the Church of God, for I am no pluraliſt, whatever D. B. is; nor do I, nor many other Presbyters, expect any more means, if this ſhould be, but that the Church may have more Presbyters apt to rule well, and labour in the word and doctrine, and be examples to the flock, we having found in experience, that ſcandalous livings occaſion ſcandalous Miniſters: And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft. The revenues annext to Cathedrals, being intended for the beſt good of the Church.
But Parag. 2. You acknowledg I am againſt ſacrilegious alienation, but, I and Maſter Beza cannot prevent it. Who can help it? We have cleared our own ſouls: yet if the Prelates would have conſented to reſignation, when this caſe was firſt preſented, I verily believe that diſhonourable alienation had been prevented.
Parag. 3. You confeſs I would fain ſet a fair gloſs upon a deteſtable fact. But every thing is not deteſtable, which you call ſo; that which would tend to have Chriſt more preacht, would be profitable to the Church, and acceptable to God. For Ordination, we have ſpoken before, and ſhewed, that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain, as your Prelates, and are as good Biſhops; onelyonly the other, by cuſtom, gradatim, have rob'd them. We ſhall have a choyce peece, when you come to examine Divine right. I ſhall wiſh the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your railings, then perſpicacity to diſcern your ſubtilties: For you are not like to trouble their heads with much of the latter.
Parag. 4. You ſay, If there be a diverſion of the waintenance, who ſhall make the conveyance, and When its made, its not valid, without the proprietary, and that is God, &c. and what is ſeparated to holy uſe, cannot return to common. Good, but what is given to God, may be improved to the utmoſt for God; and thats the aim, and would be the iſſue of the diverſion …poken of, that Chriſt might more preach'd, even to thoſe that have long ſate in darkneſs, and in the ſhadow of death.
Nor is every diverſion, (as you ſay, Parag. 5.) a turning …out of the right channel? But out of the former channel; and the latter may be better, and ſo righter, in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor. And this done, by the unqueſtionable authority of the Land, will I doubt not be approv'd by as wiſe, and as honeſt men, as you. Do not you your ſelf, pag. 119. ſay, concerning Abbies and Pryories; That good and pious men have wiſht that the abuſes had been pruned off, and that the land had been diſpoſed of, according to the Donors intentions? Whats that but diverſion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes, to ſupport other pious, and charitable uſes?
Parag. 6, 7, 8. You tell us a ſtory of the antiquity of endowing Churches, and the riches of them. And that the uſe and Dominion of Church-goods, belong'd to Biſhops, and this not onelyonly by cuſtom, but by Canon: But withal you ſay, at his charge, as it were, the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed.
Sure, you have told a good tale for your ſelf; for by it, it appears, that the wealth wherewith the Church was endowed, was not given to any perſons, but the Church, in which the Biſhop had no propriety, but power of uſe, for what he himſelf needed, and of diſpoſing the reſt to Presbyters, and other Clerks; which now the Biſhop neglecting, and many Pariſhes in his Dioceſſes wanting preaching Presbyters, for want of maintenance, and many that preach'd wanting ſubſiſtance; and the Biſhop, who you ſay, ſhould maintain them, maintaining Princely *I my ſelf once ſaw the Biſhop of Yorke, riding towards London, with fourty five men in his Livery. And I wondering at the number, was told by one of them, that there was above twenty left behinde, that wore their Lords Livery.State, a number of Serving-men, &c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presbyters, would be a returning of it into the old channel, by your own confeſſion.
But Parag. 9 The Biſhops followed the ſteps of the Apoſtolick Church, for Act. 4. we read that the well minded, when they ſold their lands, laid the prices at the Apoſtles feet, not the Presbyters. How could they, when there was, as yet, none ordained? But after, by the Apoſtles direction, there were Deacons ſet over this buſineſs of Church-treaſures. Good, and thoſe Deacons continued, and diſtributed Church-goods; ſome to the Paſtor, ſome to the poor, ſome to other pious uſes; but when your Prelates grew Lordly, the, like not that, and therefore by little and little they changed the Deacons office, and made themſelves proprietaries of the great revenues, and thereby great Princes; and you can abuſe Scripture to confirm it, as the Papiſts do to exalt the Pope. But Paul, ſay you, commanded Timothy, that the Presbyters be well provided for, 1 Tim. 5.17. And to what purpoſe was this charge, unleſs he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church? For very good purpoſe: as the Apoſtle ſhews you himſelf, 1 Tim. 4.11. Theſe things command and teach. He was to teach it, others to perform it; for though he ſet Presbyters on work, in ſome ſenſe, yet it was not for himſelf, but Chriſt and his Church; and they who reap'd their ſpirituals, were to pay them temporals, 1 Cor. 9. And you dream, when you talk of Timothyes table, or allowing maintenance. Alas, he had no Palace then, he kept no Princelike table to feed his Presbyters; theſe fancies will be ridiculous to learned men, eſpecially to Biſhops, to lay the charge on them, to maintain all the Presbyters in their Dioceſs. Yet you ſay, in thoſe times, Biſhops and Presbyters were uſed to live in the ſame houſe: What, all the Presbyters in a Dioceſs? and in the Apoſtles time? Alas Sir, they were like their Maſter, they had no houſes, but what they hired, nor no tables, but where they ſojourned, as appears by Divine ſtory: With what face can you deliver ſuch improbabilities?
But Parag. 10. You enquire, Whence the want of maintenance for preaching Presbyters ariſeth, and you anſwer, it is from the appropriation of tythes, at the diſſolution of Abbeys. This is true in part, but not in the whole; for I believe, the greater part of Appropriations are held of Biſhops, and Deans and Chapters; and if the Biſhops be to maintain the Presbyters, and withhold the tythes, who is the thief now? At leaſt, thus far, the attempt is juſt to reſtore their impropirations: And I muſt tell you this too; That there was ſcarce any Gentleman of any ingenuitie or affection to religion, but he made a far more conſiderable addition, out of his impropriation, to the incumbent, then either Biſhops, or Deans and Chapters; Though the one purchaſed them, when the other ſwore they came into them freely: Nay, ſome Gentlemen reſigned their impropriations freely: I can hear of no Biſhop that hath done ſo; though you ſay, they are bound to maintain their Presbyters. You cloſe with a jeer, but therein diſcover your ignorance: Impropriations were injurious, you confeſs; and if they be not valid in law, why do not you ſupply the cure of ſome great impropriation, and recover the tythes in a legall way? if you cannot, my poſition is truth; and ſo not diſſonant from the God of truth.
Parag. 11. You bring my words, that if Biſhops Lands were beſtowed on Presbyters: This would be, not ruine, but to rectifie the devotion of former ages, which you ſay, is ſomewhat like Cardinall Woolſey's pretence, who diſſolved fourty ſmall Monaſteries of ignorant Monks, to erect two goodly Colledges for the breeding up learned, and induſtrious Divines; was not this to turn impediments into helps? was not this as fair a pretence as mine? yes, the very ſame, and I think, few godly and rationall men will diſallow it: But you would prove by the event, that this was not accepted of God, becauſe his Colledges were not brought to perfection. But vulgus res eventu metitur, its for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event, not Doctors of Divinitie. And had Cardinall Woolſey, think you, no other ſins to make God blaſt his deſign, but this pious attempt? Sure, no man that knows his ſtory, will ſo judg; "but this gave occaſion to profuſe ſacriledg; but occaſions are not alwaies culpable of ill events, unleſs they becauſes alſo, as this was not, but the covetouſneſs, and igonrance, with other luſts, of ill-guided men.
Parag. 12. you enquire, what the meaning of theſe words is, this will turn pomp into uſe.
I anſwer not what you ſay; but ſo that wealth, which of late, ſerved for the uſeleſs pomp of one only Princely Lord Biſhop, would provide many able preachers for the uſe and edification of the Church.
But you proceed, and ſay, that the power of Biſhops, which were the main impediments to ſchiſm and hereſie, we have covenanted to root out, and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheiſm, &c. But this is but a falſe ſuggeſtion of yours; for though the power of Epiſcopacie (as Jerome ſaith) was firſt erected to prevent ſchiſm; yet amongſt us of late, as I have ſhewed, it was the great occaſion of ſchiſm, & the fautor of divers hereſies. That there have of late appeared more hereſies and ſchiſm among us then formerly, is not becauſe Epiſcopacie was pul d down, but becauſe we were ſo long without Presbyterie ſetled, which is yet but lamely done; for where that is ſetled, it would far better prevent the riſe and growth of hereſie, then Epiſcopacie; as King James demonſtrated to Mountague, Biſhop of Bath and Wells; demanding of him, upon the occaſion of Legatts Arrianiſm, what the reaſon ſhould be, that Scotland was ſo free from ſchiſm and hereſie, when England was far more peſtered with both. The relation out of a learned Author, you may take as followeth:
When Legatt the Arrian, and Weakman, Scoti paracl. contra Tileri praen: from the relation of a Courtier of good credit, lib. 1. c. 8that affirmed himſelf to be the Holy Ghoſt, were put to death; Mountague, Biſhop of Bath and Wells, ask'd King James ſeriouſly, whence it was, that England did bring forth Sects, hereſies, ſchiſms, inſomuch, that many families, before we were aware, ſeparated from us, and fled away; whereas no ſuch thing was obſerved to happen in the Church of Scotland? To whom the King, as moſt skilfull in this cauſe, moſt wiſely anſwered; That ſuch was the Diſcipline of the Scotch Church, that it was impoſſible for ſuch things to fall out amongſt them: for firſt (ſaith the King) you muſt know, that every Church hath its Paſtor alwaies reſident, and vigilant in his pariſh; and this Paſtor hath joyned with him Seniors and Deacons, which every week meet together at a ſet time and place, for the cenſure of manners, that almoſt the whole flock is known by face to the Paſtor, and the conditions, diſpoſition, and religion of everyone, is made apparent: no hereſie therefore can ſpring up in a Pariſh, without notice taken by the Paſtor; and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Paſtor, They have every week their Presbyteries, compoſed of all the Paſtors in a Shrievalty, or Deanrie, in the chief City of that precinct; and this, not only to decide the more weighty queſtions touching manners; but alſo to try doctrine it ſelf: Here do propheſie at leaſt two; whereof the firſt doth only open the text and expound it: The ſecond doth give the uſe, exhortation, and application: This finiſht, the reſt meet together, and the two ſpeakers go aſide, untill the Moderator of the Presbyterie asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered. And if (to ſay no worſe) they do but ſmell out any thing, either its forthwith buryed by common ſuffrage, or if the Presbytery be divided in any queſtion, yet at least, the whole matter is huſht in ſilence untill the next Synod, which come twice a yeer. Hither come all the Paſtors of the whole Province, accompanied with their Elders, as the ſtate of every Church requires.
The Moderator of the precedent Synod begins with a Sermon; and then, either a new Moderator is choſen, or (which ſeldom falls out) the old is continued. The queſtion refer'd to the Synod, is either compoſed, or huſht up again in ſilence, and refer'd to the National Synod, held once every year. Hither come, not onelyonly the Paſtors, but the King, or his Commiſſioner, and uſually ſome of all degrees, ſufficiently furniſht with judgement and authority to compoſe any controverſie; ſo Hereſie is ſtifled in the very birth. So you may ſee, that Presbyterie is a better way to keep out, or under Schiſms and Hereſies, in King James his judgement, grounded on experience, then Epiſcopacy: For what you add, That the Pulpits and Preſſes, are lock'd up to all Orthodox men; Is falſe: if to any, it is my grief: I am not to anſwer for others faults.
Parag. 13. You ſay, Its true, and not true, that by Parochial Paſtors, the work of the Miniſtery is chiefly to be performed. True you ſay, it is in the Fathers ſence, not in mine. But my ſence, I ſhall prove to you, is Scripture ſence: For Paſtors in my ſence, are ſuch as were ordained, Act. 14.13. and Tit. 1.5. in every Church, and were by the Holy Ghoſt, made over-ſeers of them to feed them, Act. 20.28. This you confeſs; for theſe places you underſtand of Presbyter-Biſhops. And I hope you will not oppoſe Fathers to Scriptures; if you do, you know who muſt fall, Gal. 1.8. Its true, that the place of a Biſhops juriſdiction, was ſometime called a Pariſh; But that Pariſh was uſually not ſo bigg as ſome Pariſhes in England now; If they were, how could ſix Biſhops be aſſembled to the cenſure of every Presbyter, as the Canon was: ſure thats above the number of all the Biſhops that are in one of our Provinces, which grates hard on your Dioceſans, ſhewing, how unlike they are to ancient Biſhops. 'Nor are the ordering of the Church, or ordaining of Presbyters, without the ſphear of Presbyters, by any law of God, but humane cuſtom: No, nor are theſe the chief works of the Miniſtery; No Doctor: Preaching, and ſound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Miniſtery, which deſerve moſt reward, as you may ſee, 1 Tim. 5.17. and 1 Cor. 1.17. and therefore, when Saint Paul reckons up Miniſters, and their Miniſterial acts, governing comes behinde teaching, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.6, 7, 8.
But Parag. 14. You think to prove, 'That your Biſhops do the chief work, virtually, from an axiom in philoſophy, propter quod aliquid eſt tale, illud ipſum eſt magis tale. But herein you ſhew your ſelf as bad a Philoſopher, as Divine; for doth propter quod, note out an efficient cauſe, or the final cauſe, think you? You are therefore miſtaken in your axiom, which is falſe, being as if you had ſaid, Presbyters are made Preachers, propter populum, for the people: ergo. the people are more Preachers: A wiſe concluſion. We have a rule indeed, quicquid efficit tale, eſt mag is tale. And I will grant, that they that ordain Preachers, ought to be more Preachers themſelves; but that, you know, is falſe in experience, in moſt of your Biſhops; therefore you ſhould know, that ſuch Axioms, are true onelyonly in natural, not in voluntary cauſes, as the Logicians will teach you. Neither are the Biſhops the total cauſes of Preachers: Alas, at the moſt, they give them but Commiſſion to uſe their gifts authoritatively, which gifts they have from God, and are the fundamental cauſe to make them Preachers. Nor can Biſhops alone ordain Presbyters; that I have proved before. And what if I ſhould prove it now by an axiom of philoſophie? Generare ſibi ſimile, To beget his like, is the affection of a living creature; And Preſbyterie, you know, is a living office, ergo, Presbyters may ordain Presbyters. I believe, you will ſweat to give a rational anſwer to it. What you add about ordinary Courts of juſtice, and Parliament; Sir, though I count the Parliament the ſupream Court, yet juſtice is chiefly done by inferiour Courts, becauſe it ordinarily lies on them, and the Parliament is onelyonly to ſupply and rectifie their errors.
But you proceed, and Parag. 15.16. Compare the Miniſters to ſouldiers in an Army, and to Mariners in a Navy, and your Biſhops are as the General, they are as the Admiral. So then, the people are no part of the Ship or Army, or elſe you level the Presbyters with the people, whom the Holy Ghoſt calls their guids ſet over them: Such ſimilitudes you uſe to make. But every Preacher is not fit to be a Biſhop: thats your judgement; but the Holy Ghoſt ſaith none ſhould preach, except he be ſent, and none ſhould be ſent, but ſuch as are fitted to take the care and over ſight of the Church, and thats the Holy Ghoſt's Biſhop: Whatever your opinion is, ſee 1 Tim. 3.5. Acts 20.28. Indeed, ſuch a Biſhop as you would have, Monarchically to govern a whol Dioceſs of a Shier or two, cannot be made ex quolibet ligno; but neither Scriptures, nor primitive times acknowledg any ſuch Biſhop; But ſuch a Biſhop as may joyn with others in the government of a Church: a meaner man may be without prejudice, for others maturitie in judgement, may help his want of experience.
What you object, Parag. 17. about the Levellers Doctrine is ſutable to this; Is but a capritious fancie of your own; for God hath comprized all ordinarie Miniſters under the ſame name of Paſtors; and therefore man can make no difference among them, but for orders ſake. Neither do I go about to level all Benefices: you know there is a difference, in a great diſproportion, which may be for men of different parts.
But Parag. 18. You exclaim, becauſe I ſay, there will be no danger of ſacriledg in my way. And firſt, you ſay, to overthrow Epiſcopacy, is to overthrow the Church, and for that its not enough for you to abuſe a Father, but an Apoſtle too; for when Saint Paul ſaith, we are built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Epheſ. 2.20. Whats that, ſaith Beza, but Jeſus Chriſt? So the Apoſtle, who is the beſt interpreter of himſelf, explicates it, 1 Cor. 3.9. and adds, Planè eſt Anti-Chriſtus, quî ſibi tribnit quod unius Chriſti eſt: He is plainly anti-Chriſt, that arrogates to himſelf (or to any other) what is onelyonly Chriſts. What think you of this? Again, thoſe that take the Apoſtles to be the foundation, is it in reſpect of their perſons, authoritie, or doctrine? Their doctrine, I believe Sir; and will you compare your Biſhops, for doctrine, to the Apoſtles and Prophets: Who, as ſuch, were infallible; Nay, do you not confeſs the doctrinal part of the Miniſterie to belong to the Presbyter, as well as your Prelate, and to be more performed by them? and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Biſhops, out of this place?
But you add, Parag. 19. What, no danger of ſacriledg in robbing Father and Mother? But you anſwer for me, that it is no ſacriledg, becauſe the means ſhall ſtil be ſetled on the Church: and thats a reaſon which you cannot anſwer: For ſacriledg is an alienating of that which was juſtly devoted for ſacred, to civil, or prophane uſe; therefore change, ſo there be a continuance of holy uſe, is no ſacriledg: Nor ſhall we rob our Father; for, as you confeſs, holy treaſure was firſt given to the Church in general: The Biſhops had not propriety, but uſe of ſome, and with the reſt they were to maintain the Presbyters, which are wanting in many places, for want of maintenance. Now for thoſe, in whom authority lyes to take care for the edification of the Church: To diſpoſe the Churches Patrimonie, ſo as may be beſt for edification of the Church, appointing it to maintain preachers, not pomp, will be counted neither ſacriledg, nor theft, by rationall and good men. But you ſay, we rob the Church of her husband too; for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters, yet ſhe hath but one husband: ſo that great Counſell of Calcedon; but that Counſell ſpake according to the corrupt cuſtomes of thoſe times, not according to the tenure of Scriptures, who make all the Presbyters over-ſeers over their particular flocks, to dwell with them as men of knowledg, and to take care for them; and that's to be in your ſence husband, is it not? After you have made the Church a widow without a Biſhop, you add, while a widow, ſhe can bring forth nothing but a baſtard brood, conſider that; yes, I ſhall conſider it, but to your ſhame: what if a Church continue, as often it hath, through covetouſneſs and faction, long without a Biſhop, are all the Converts, begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters, baſtards? nay, what if Churches caſt off Epiſcopacie, are all her Presbyters baſtards? Do you thus gratifie the Papiſts, and abuſe all the Miniſters of our ſiſter reformed Churches? many of which far outſtrip you in all miniſteriall qualification; your aſſertion therefore is very conſiderable, to diſcover what a Popiſh ſpirit you are of.
For Parag. 20. Whether your concluſion will follow on the premiſes, or mine, I now leave to the judicious Reader. I would not have the King, for fear of the people, to do any unlawfull act: I diſclaimed it in the very entrance of my Caſe reſolved; but I only perſwade to what, for ought I yet ſee, I have proved lawfull; and that to reſcue a periſhing kingdom, and prevent the hazard of his Crown; which, that it may be free, and flouriſhing on his head, is my daily and heartie prayer, as thoſe that know me can very well witneſs, notwithſtanding your ignorant calumniations, to the contrarie.
Caſe of Conſcience Reſolved.
MY ſecond Antagoniſt exceeds the firſt, both in ſubtiltie and peremptorineſs; for he plainly affirms, that the King cannot deſert Epiſcopacie, without flat perjurie; and hence falls foul, both on thoſe that would force him to it: and alſo on thoſe moderate Courtiers, that for peace ſake, counſell'd it. He diſputes thus; There's difference between laws and oaths: Where the ſupream Jus dominii is, there is a power above all laws, but not above their own oaths, in whom that power is; for law bindes only while it is a law, that is, till it be repealed: But an oath bindeth as long as it pleaſeth him, to whom it is taken: The reaſon is, becauſe the ſupream power may cedere jure ſuo, and obliege himſelf where before he was free; which if they do by promiſe, juſtice bindes them to performance; but if by an oath, (the matter being lawful) then are they bound in religion and conſcience; for an oath adds a religious bond unto God. If this were not ſo, no oath were binding to them.
I anſwer; Firſt, its a ground laid down by this Author in the ſame place, that no oath is obligatorie beyond the intention of it; and then I firſt propound it to conſideration, whether the intention of this oath be not only againſt a tyrannous invaſion on the rights of the Clergie, not againſt an orderly alteration of them, if any prove inconvenient; and to protect them againſt violence, not againſt legal waies of change?
For firſt, this is as much, as is rationall for a King to undertake; and therfore in right reaſon, the oath ſhould have no other ſenſe, if the words of the oath will bear it, as the words of this oath will.
Secondly, this oath to the Clergie, muſt not be intended in a ſenſe inconſiſtent with the Kings oath, to the people, firſt taken for their protection in their laws and liberties; for then the latter oath will be a preſent breach of the former, and ſo unlawfull. Now one of the Priviledges of the People is, that the Peers and Commons in Parliament, have power, with the conſent of the King, to alter whatever, in any particular eſtate, is inconvenient to the whole. And therefore he cannot afterward engage himſelf to any particular eſtate, to exempt it from this power; for by that oath, at leaſt, ceſſit jure ſuo, in this Authors judgment; The Clergie and their priviledges, are ſubject to the Parliament, or they are not; I hope, they will not now claim an exemption from fecular power: But if they be under Parliamentarie power, how can it be rationally conceived to be the meaning of the Kings oath, to preſerve the Priviledges of the Clergie againſt that power, to which they are legally ſubject? or how were the oath in that ſenſe, conſiſtent with the priviledges of the nation, formerly ſworn to by the king? If the oath had ſuch a ſence in times of Poperie, when the Clergie were a diſtinct Corporation; yet when that exemption was aboliſh'd, as a branch of Anti-Chriſtian uſurpation: The change of their condition muſt needs change the intention of the oath, unleſs they will ſay, that the Crown ſtands ſtill engaged to them, to maintain ſuch priviledges as by Act of Parliament, were long ſince aboliſh'd, which is, to make his oath to them contrariant to that taken before, for the maintenance of the laws: Its apparent then, to make the intention of the oath to be againſt a legal alteration by Parliament, makes it unlawfull, and ſo not obligatorie. And if it be not intended againſt legall alteration, the king may paſs a Bill for the abolition of Epiſcopacie, when his Houſes of Parliament think it convenient, and petition for it, without violation of his oath.